My ultimate dream is for DED to write an exposé on his own articles and how they obscure reality. I am concerned, though, that such an article may cause a feedback loop that brings down the internet...

Why single out WikiPedia? Just change the sentence a little and you're done ...

Everyone (at least, everyone with any brain), knows not to trust "Authority X" as a single source for knowledge.

The TV, magazines, the government, politicians, corporations, newspapers and more all have an angle. In this information overloaded age, we are lucky to be able to easily cross-reference against other reports and interpretations. Essential if you want to have any hope to find out what's really going on around us.

As an ex of mine said .. The only place you can find "objectivity" is in the dictionary. :-)

I just noticed the talk page for the Wikipedia page in question. I've worked with a team that successfully updated a 'controversial' page on wikipedia and our method was VERY different then what I'm seeing here. 'Vigilantes' going in and 'attacking' the page will get your edits reverted very quickly. If a change is going to be made to shift the tone of the article it would be best to form a group in private and create a draft for the proposed changes. Peer review it amongst the group and make sure it's as unbiased as possible. Stick only to facts and provide citations for those facts. As it stands now I can't think of a single person on this forum that would be capable of being unbiased and sticking only to facts, but surely there are AI members who don't post regularly that would fit the bill. Our team found that the wikipedia regulars were quite welcoming when approached in that manner. Stick to the facts and inject no opinion. I'd also suggest giving it some time before approaching with any changes. As the page has recently been vandalized multiple times in the last few days there is currently a lock on the page and people will also be very weary of future changes after loooking at the revision history.

Whether or not any regular posters are capable of working in an unbiased and facts only nature is arguably the least important part of my initial post. Strange how that's what gets focused on...

The point is that the current strategy for getting the Wikipedia page changed is a very bad one. Don't go in and make changes like removing content and replacing it with "Samsung, go suck a duck" under an anonymous IP address or make changes just so you can screenshot it and see how long it takes to get reverted. That's considered vandalism and it hurts your cause. There is a much better alternative approach if you're serious about wanting the page to be improved.

Not really so strange, seeing as you decided to casually slander every single poster here as irredeemably biased and therefore probably not worthy of editing a precious Wikipedia entry.

Shamey, shamey
Plz leave edits in the hands of professional "impartial" wiki editors like this ........

Bjornte, interpret as you wish. You might be pleased to know that you must have made Dilger's day.
After all, it is quite rare that his diatribes have any effect. But here we have it, this article is now labelled as biased, and will certainly be rewritten in a manner more pleasing to Cupertino.
To be honest, I thought you, as a European, especially a proud Norwegian, would be above kowtowing to large American companies. Alas, I see Apple is inching closer and closer to its goal of eliminating all meaningful competition via its world-class legal and marketing departments.

Furthermore -- even more happy news for you -- since Wikipedia is apparently controlled by the American companies with the largest marketing and legal departments, just as any other American media outlet, I see no purpose in further contributing to, trusting in, or promoting Wikipedia. So have at it, edit as the overlords from Cupertino demand. Slopswool (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Shamey, shamey
Plz leave edits in the hands of professional "impartial" wiki editors like this ........

Bjornte, interpret as you wish. You might be pleased to know that you must have made Dilger's day.
After all, it is quite rare that his diatribes have any effect. But here we have it, this article is now labelled as biased, and will certainly be rewritten in a manner more pleasing to Cupertino.
To be honest, I thought you, as a European, especially a proud Norwegian, would be above kowtowing to large American companies. Alas, I see Apple is inching closer and closer to its goal of eliminating all meaningful competition via its world-class legal and marketing departments, and its army of blind followers.
Furthermore -- even more happy news for you -- since Wikipedia is apparently controlled by the American companies with the largest marketing and legal departments, just as any other American media outlet, I see no purpose in further contributing to, trusting in, or promoting Wikipedia. So have at it, edit as the overlords from Cupertino demand. Slopswool (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"Everyone (at least, everyone with any brain), knows not to trust Wikipedia as a single source for knowledge."

Why single out WikiPedia? Just change the sentence a little and you're done ...

Everyone (at least, everyone with any brain), knows not to trust "Authority X" as a single source for knowledge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost

You'll find subjectivity in the dictionary, too.

Err, clearly my point was a little too subtle for you.

People seem to expect "objectivity" in the media for some odd reason - what they get instead is information mixed with opinion which curiously happens to align with the views of the publishers. Objectivity exists only in the dictionary; subjectivity, however, can be found everywhere.

"Everyone (at least, everyone with any brain), knows not to trust Wikipedia as a single source for knowledge."

Why single out WikiPedia? Just change the sentence a little and you're done ...

Everyone (at least, everyone with any brain), knows not to trust "Authority X" as a single source for knowledge.
Err, clearly my point was a little too subtle for you.

People seem to expect "objectivity" in the media for some odd reason - what they get instead is information mixed with opinion which curiously happens to align with the views of the publishers. Objectivity exists only in the dictionary; subjectivity, however, can be found everywhere.

Ok, but I guess my point was too subtle for you, too. The words 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity' are to be found in a dictionary, but there is no more guarantee of objectivity in a dictionary definition than there is in anything else.